On 15/03/2015 14:19, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
All,
I ran some numbers on the current votes of the dual-mode vote right
now. There were a number of voters that I didn't recognize. So I
decided to pull some stats.
The following voters never voted before the dual-mode RFC went up:
dom - no
eliw - no
kguest - yes
kk - no
nohn - no
oliver - yes
richsage - yes
sammywg - no
spriebsch - no
srain - no
theseer - no
zimt - no
Some of these names I recognize from list (sammywg and eliw), but many I do not.
The interesting thing happens when you look at the voting direction.
Currently, the RFC is slightly losing 70:37 (65.4%).
If we look at percentages, 4.2% of yes voters have never voted in a
prior RFC. But a whopping 24.3% of no voters have never voted before.
I think calling this an "irregularity" is going a bit far. It's an
interesting observation, but since this is such a contentious issue, the
question I would be asking is what these people have in common that
makes them likely to vote no - are they from a particular part of the
community whose voice is less often heard, for instance?
As I've just said on Twitter before seeing this thread, these are really
small sample sizes, and the way you've framed the statistics there makes
it sound more significant than it is. Wolfram Alpha tells me that if 12
people chose their vote by tossing a coin, there's a probability of
0.073 that 9 of them would vote the same way, which is higher than the
threshold of 0.05 traditionally set for significance. I don't know if
that's a valid statistic, but it's at least as scientific as your
"whopping 24.3%".
If you look at those users as a proportion of the complete "turnout",
you get 11.11% (1 in 9) votes coming from first-time voters. The net
impact is 6 votes out of 108, which is about 5.5%; that happens to be
enough to stop this vote crossing the line right now, but only because
the vote is so close anyway.
If we adjust the votes to remove these "never voted" accounts, it
stands at 67:28. Which is 70.5%. Which is basically where the vote was
prior to the competing RFC opening.
If you exclude an arbitrary subset of votes in a close ballot like this,
it's easy to edge it past the finishing post, but that's really an abuse
of statistics. For instance, you could say that if the vote was closed
on date X, the result would have been Y, but you can't know that there
weren't people who'd already decided which way they were voting, but
hadn't got round to logging in, because they knew the vote wasn't due to
close yet.
With more research, you could come up with other interesting subsets,
like people who've voted less than X times, or not voted in the last X
months. But if you're going to play with statistics, you should be
rigourous in defining your hypothesis, and how you'll measure the
significance of your result. Alternatively, leave the statistics out of
it, and say that you're interested to know why these first-time voters
voted how they did.
Regards,
--
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
